AlanMThere are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAHFour boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.

He's just simplifying the rule that states "If you have to shoot, keep shooting until the threat no longer exists."

AlanMThere are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAHFour boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.

It's probably not the best choice of words to use on TV, but it certainly gets the point across.

I think it's rather unfortunate that the mass public seems to think that "Shoot'm a LOT!" is something that's somehow unwarranted or bad. That every time a police officer or a law-abiding citizen chooses to enforce the law or to defend themselves by pulling the trigger more than once, that it's somehow viewed as "excessive force." I really wish that this is something that everyone knows and understands: that aside from the on/off switch of the central nervous system, the body is a hydraulic pump - that until we drop that blood pressure sufficiently, the person being shot just keeps doing what he or she wants to do, unless they choose to quit.

I really like the late Pat Rogers' take:

"Just because you shot 'em doesn't mean you hurt 'em. Just because you hurt 'em doesn't mean you've killed 'em. And just because you killed 'em doesn't mean they're gonna drop dead, right {inappropriate language} now."

It's really too bad that the Hollywood of years past and other forms of mass-media has led us to believe that someone just drops over dead from any gunshot wound, or is otherwise thrown across the room by the same. This ridiculous notion does *everyone* a dis-service.

With today's optics in the media, I think that as AlanM noted, the Sheriff taking the time to expand his statement to the full: "If you have to shoot, keep shooting until the threat no longer exists" would have made a stronger case, as well as provided more gravity to this very important subject.

The only shot placement that guarantees immediate and total incapacitation is one roughly centered in the face, below the middle of the forehead and the upper lip, and from the eyes in. Shots to the side of the head should be centered between the crown of the skull and the middle of the ear opening, from the center of the cheekbones to the middle of the back of the head.

^ I'd say that those aiming zones are generous for the "Incapacitation zone," and that for the "Lethal zone," that the entire box needs to be moved higher up.

Here's the reason why:

That the manual is designed for high-velocity rifle cartridges should be noted, first and foremost - the generosity given to the "Incapacitation zone" for a rifle cartridge is going to need to be tightened up for a handgun round.

For the "Lethal zone," the manual starts the upper edge at the level of the armpits, which, anatomically, doesn't make sense. Modern armor fitment ( http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php ... l-diagrams) ) notes the importance of fitting the superior edge high - at the level of the suprasternal notch on the front/anterior aspect - to afford proper coverage to the greater vessels as well as the upper portions of the lung fields. On a basic, 2-dimensional anatomy silhouette target, the top edge of that box should almost be at the level of the shoulders. Certainly, a high-velocity rifle wound to the abdominal viscera is undoubtedly devastating, but again, in terms of defensive handgun use, that falls under the "it doesn't mean they are going to drop dead right {inappropriate language} now" category. Additionally, the "new" (as of last summer) 3-22.9 shifts the chest "Lethal Zone" higher on the silhouette, page B-11, which also notes the use of the "Circuitry/Switch" versus "Hydraulic/Timer" distinctions.

That the old FM3-22.9 brings up 3-dimensional target considerations is something that I was surprised to not see (at least not upon my reading, as I am ESL, I always concede that I could very well miss something critical! ) in the new document, and I think the new document is poorer for it. I think that one of the biggest shortcomings in flat-range training is the lack of use of realistic, 3-dimensional targets which highlight the importance of understanding 3-dimensional anatomy. That the older document highlighted this yet the new does not, I think, is a deficit that should be corrected, particularly given the way modern training is heading (no pun intended) - aligning with medical/anatomic considerations (consider Aaron Cowan's head anatomy video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWR3LHEjRAE , as well as the teachings of the late Louis Awerbuck).

TSiWRX wrote:It's probably not the best choice of words to use on TV, but it certainly gets the point across.

I think it's rather unfortunate that the mass public seems to think that "Shoot'm a LOT!" is something that's somehow unwarranted or bad. That every time a police officer or a law-abiding citizen chooses to enforce the law or to defend themselves by pulling the trigger more than once, that it's somehow viewed as "excessive force." I really wish that this is something that everyone knows and understands: that aside from the on/off switch of the central nervous system, the body is a hydraulic pump - that until we drop that blood pressure sufficiently, the person being shot just keeps doing what he or she wants to do, unless they choose to quit.

I really like the late Pat Rogers' take:

"Just because you shot 'em doesn't mean you hurt 'em. Just because you hurt 'em doesn't mean you've killed 'em. And just because you killed 'em doesn't mean they're gonna drop dead, right {inappropriate language} now."

It's really too bad that the Hollywood of years past and other forms of mass-media has led us to believe that someone just drops over dead from any gunshot wound, or is otherwise thrown across the room by the same. This ridiculous notion does *everyone* a dis-service.

With today's optics in the media, I think that as AlanM noted, the Sheriff taking the time to expand his statement to the full: "If you have to shoot, keep shooting until the threat no longer exists" would have made a stronger case, as well as provided more gravity to this very important subject.

I wonder though if he had said it that way instead of shoot'm a lot, if the news media would've even covered it.

The woman at the end of the video, who talked about the Sheriff saying people should be proficient, and said something to the effect of "I'm not sure that's always the case when somebody's armed, and we see a lot of that in the news unfortunitely too." Of the news stories I've seen or read about involving a DGU that involves shooting, I've not seen a lot of examples of licensed concealed carriers not being successful, as compared to the number of people who are. To me he woman looked really uncomfortable listening to the reporter or discussing the subject with him.

TSiWRX wrote:^ I'd say that those aiming zones are generous for the "Incapacitation zone," and that for the "Lethal zone," that the entire box needs to be moved higher up.

Here's the reason why:

Good to know information, thanks.

I've not seen a lot of shootings between armed participants, but in the ones I have, only one of them involved both parties just standing still like the movie High Noon. All of the others had at least some movement between shots or during them, making surgical type shot placement with a handgun a little difficult. The one time that I did witness two people standing still and shooting at each other (each fired 6 shots from approx 12-15 feet) both parties brought their handguns up to eye level, and both missed each other.

I may not agree with Correia about hardware (his "B-Reels" contain a lot about firearms training and firearms hardware selection, and its these that I find a lot of disagreement with...I wish he'd just stay in the lane that he'd carved out for himself, which is of immense value to the community) - but his catalog of violent crimes caught on CCTV is an absolute treasure trove of information.

I'm really not sure when he started to becomes seriously appreciated by the community: I distinctly remember, years ago, some in one of the training-heavy communities making fun of him because of his then banner title on YouTube as "Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts." Being the geek that I am, I actually thought of that as being really pretty cool.

As to otherwise accomplished shooters missing during a gunfight, even at close range?

The late Louis Awerbuck had a wonderful explanation of why this happens - and it plays directly into that belt-buckle-to-belt-buckle Gunfight at the OK Corral presentation that you wrote of above.

"Close" here is somewhat deceptive - remember that as we get closer to the target, any movement actually magnifies the arc through which we must track that same movement: for a simplistic yet illustrative example, think about a threat side-stepping at 15 or even 7 yards, versus side-stepping at 2 yards. At two yards, that single side-step covers a much bigger arc through which we must track the muzzle than it does at-range.

The late Louis Awerbuck noted that this apparent "inverse proportions" was one of the reasons why even good shooters "miss" at close distances.

I may not agree with Correia about hardware (his "B-Reels" contain a lot about firearms training and firearms hardware selection, and its these that I find a lot of disagreement with...I wish he'd just stay in the lane that he'd carved out for himself, which is of immense value to the community) - but his catalog of violent crimes caught on CCTV is an absolute treasure trove of information.

I agree.

TSiWRX wrote:As to otherwise accomplished shooters missing during a gunfight, even at close range?

The late Louis Awerbuck had a wonderful explanation of why this happens - and it plays directly into that belt-buckle-to-belt-buckle Gunfight at the OK Corral presentation that you wrote of above.

"Close" here is somewhat deceptive - remember that as we get closer to the target, any movement actually magnifies the arc through which we must track that same movement: for a simplistic yet illustrative example, think about a threat side-stepping at 15 or even 7 yards, versus side-stepping at 2 yards. At two yards, that single side-step covers a much bigger arc through which we must track the muzzle than it does at-range.

The late Louis Awerbuck noted that this apparent "inverse proportions" was one of the reasons why even good shooters "miss" at close distances.

In-reality, that distance works both for as well as against us.

While that's true, it still doesn't explain why two people who aren't moving completely miss each other, or a cop missing the non moving suspect at a slightly longer distance (which turned out to be a good thing though since the suspect was unarmed) When I say "non moving" I mean strictly on the outside, as the suspects internal stomach organs were moving in overdrive afterwards. The cop was really stressed out, and thought the suspect was armed at the time, so psychological considerations come into play too sometimes.

M-Quigley wrote:While that's true, it still doesn't explain why two people who aren't moving completely miss each other, or a cop missing the non moving suspect at a slightly longer distance (which turned out to be a good thing though since the suspect was unarmed) When I say "non moving" I mean strictly on the outside, as the suspects internal stomach organs were moving in overdrive afterwards. The cop was really stressed out, and thought the suspect was armed at the time, so psychological considerations come into play too sometimes.

Ah, my bad! I mis-read your post back up there!

I agree, I think that psychology/physiology has a lot to do with why folks miss while standing still.

I think that shooters can get really proficient at "point shooting," but that in order to do so, one must either decidedly practice it as a standalone skill, or they must devote sufficient practice to sighted shooting that non-sighted shooting becomes a relatively effective corollary.

I think it's very telling that good point-shooters maintain that their techniques are still limited by distance, and that, furthermore, we now have many reports in both the lay media as well as within community that suggest the use of sighted fire becomes imperative once we exceed the threshold of a certain BSA template.

For me, personally, I know that my difficulties with non-sighted fire stem from my deficiencies with sighted-fire fundamentals.